Two shots. Two hits. Vet's got some street cred...

with the exception of the vet, sounds like a typical turfwar

one starts shooting the others shoot back,,

but thankfully there weren't more injured,,,,

These are the people(Veterans) Obama wants to punish and label as unfit to own a gun claiming PTSD or some BS.

To bad he didn't hit the other to punks shooting at them and to bad he didn't fire a fatal shot at the punk he hit. Now the tax payers get to pay his medical bills and his room and board for the rest of his life.

And your want gun control. You've just proven your self hypocritical supporting the Vet. If he didn't have a gun four innocent people would have been dead. That is why American's baring violent Felony convictions should be allowed to carry, anywhere.

there is nothing hypocritical here,,,,

I have never supported a total ban on guns, I support regulation of the types of weapons and the types of people possessing them

I would imagine this vet , who signs a contract to be a human target, would be one 'type' who should have a weapon and training,,,,

Then you disagree with Obama on an issue. I am amazed.

dont be amazed, I disagree with him on a few things

this is not one though, I dont believe I have ever heard him propose that noone should own a gun either,,,

He did everything by the book. He RETURNED fire, and was accurate while being shot at. These are the people that should, and NEED to be armed.

Veterans, especially those that have been in combat, actually have a lot over your typical police officer. The training and focus needed to function in such a situation is already completed and to a much greater degree than achieved in any police academy. We need to keep ammo cheap enough and ensure there are friendly places where these citizens can maintain that training and marksmanship.

And furthermore, in reference to the article, its a good thing the courts finally lifted the ban on concealed carry.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/11-dead-60-wounded-chicago-weekend-violence-wheres-outrage/

11 dead, 60 wounded in Chicago weekend violence. Where’s the outrage?



When it’s politically expedient, liberal progressives will use any gun violence to further their anti-gun agenda. However, when it’s in their backyard, the cradle of their gun control efforts, they are amazingly silent. Liberals talk about how all the illegal immigrants are escaping the violence of their countries, but is it possible to escape from the city of Chicago?

Based on what happened there this past weekend, people may sure want to.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, by 7 a.m. Monday, 11 people had been killed and at least 60 others wounded in holiday weekend shootings across the city since Thursday night. Two more were shot dead by police.

Nearly all of those killed were black or Hispanic men age 35 or younger. Two —Shaquille Ross, 18, and Kezon Lamb, 19 — were teenagers. One was a woman.

“According to ABC News station WLS-TV in Chicago there were also three police-involved shootings on July 4th alone. They city has been actively combating gang and shooting violence in recent years after a bloody year in 2012, when it was the only city in the nation to record more than 500 homicides.”

Yes, Chicago, the home of Saul Alinsky, Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Ayers, Tony Reszko, Valerie Jarrett, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson Sr., Hillary Clinton, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel. So why no statement of condemnation from these illustrious progressive socialists? Perhaps they just don’t care — after all this is occurring in the black neighborhoods — the hapless playground of liberal progressives.

ABC News says, “to bring down the high murder rate, police have been dispatched by the hundreds in dangerous neighborhoods, and government officials have worked with community leaders to try to combat violence.”

“The strategy appeared to be working, with the number of homicides falling to 415 in 2013 from more than 500 the year before. However the murder rate was still higher than many other U.S. cities. By comparison New York City, which is more than triple the size in population recorded less than 350 murders in 2013.”

But shootings overall are on the rise, with the total in Chicago this year up to 1,129 so far. According to the Chicago Tribune, there were 2,185 shooting victims in the city last year.

So where are the speeches from Obama, a Chicago native, about gang related gun violence? I guess it is just not as important as flooding the country with illegal immigrants.

Where is his pen and phone on this subject? This clearly isn’t about gun control because criminals sure seem capable of getting guns — to the danger of honest, law-abiding citizens.

I can tell you for certain, if I were president and there was an outbreak of gang-related gun violence in my hometown of Atlanta, you can bet I’d be there – and not talking about more government funding or blaming others. I’d go into those affected neighborhoods and stand eye-to-eye with gang leaders and let them know in no uncertain terms I will do everything to crush them.

Then I’d work with church, community, and business leaders to restore the communities to afford better opportunities. That has nothing to do with being a black president – it has to do with being a leader.

Which we certainly don’t have right now.

actually, there are far too many communities for any President to spend the time 'standing eye to eye' in some pissing match with them

however, the power of the pen is at least as mighty as any staredown/pissing contest

and this president has indeed used it for many such programs with communities that are underserved,,,,

dont believe that if the media hasnt reported it EN MASSE, it has therefore not happened,,,,

Turf war?

arent all 'wars'?

meaning people asserting power or ownership over land or things,,

in this case, the ownership of a drink,,,,apparently

Sounds more like assault with a deadly weapon.

yeah, initiated by 'turf' or 'property'

if the distribution of illegal substances were controlled by govt
regulation and payed for by taxation on those substances and actions
then the turf was would begin to disappear

how many turf wars have you seen since 1940 over control of the
distribution of alcohol

prohibition just gives thugs a way to get rich then convert their
actions to over businesses by which they can become ligit and work
themselves into the political systems to gain even more power and
money all the while still being a thug full of greed and apathy for
the common person


----------------------------------

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

though I agree that decriminalizing things (like alcohol , as an example) can sometimes eliminate the criminal element

I don't agree that a 'turf war' is applied only to gangs (which I think is the basic premise of the argument) , individuals learn a 'mine' mentality in this culture, whether its something legal or illegal

people will kill or be killed over their 'turf/territory/property'


over being in 'my neighborhood'
over bothering 'my drink'
just about anything people can lay a claim to (spend their money on) people can find a reason to kill over,,,,

A turf war is " a bitter struggle for property,control or rights". There was no bitter struggle for anything,just an a-hole that went and got a gun and and pulled it on the wrong guy and got shot for it. No turf war!

ID say people shooting back and forth is a struggle,,and pretty bitter

most gangs finance their gangs with drug sales n some also use protection and prostitution to go this they must prevent other gangs from entering there area of business

doing this creates individual attacks tjese indvidual attacks escalate into multi-member retaliation attacks and then the hit and run attack known as the drive bys start

those are good examples of turf war

but only a few in an exhaustive list

that can include also struggles between individuals,,,not having to do with gangs,,,